Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of alleged bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- The penalty has been levied by the AO on the reason that there was no actual delivery of goods from the purchasers and only bills were issued which is evident from the fact that no supporting documents relating to the delivery of goods such as delivery challan, place of delivery, lorry receipts were furnished. As recorded by the AO, even during the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction.
In Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [2007 (7) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT] has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability, unlike the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. While considering an appeal against an order made u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain penalty. - Decided against assessee.